兩岸國際品質獎得主陳文雄羅益強將展開對話
【本報訊】
一九九一年國際品質類最高的兩個大獎：美國國家最高品質將及日本品質戴明獎，同時由分屬太平洋兩岸華裔領導的公司獲得。十一月七日，美國旭電公司董事長陳文雄及台灣飛利浦公司總裁羅益強，將在社會大學安排下，展開品質意識對話：「跨世紀的經濟戰爭──品質意識的角色」。
美國國家最高品質獎(Ml Quality Award)是一項由美國國會定法，每年由美國總統頒發的工商業最高品質殊榮。擁有美國哈佛大學應用力學博士頭銜的陳文雄，曾在一九九一年一月，被美國總統布希選為亞太商業訪問團中惟一的亞裔代表，前往澳大利亞、新加坡、韓國、日本四國促進美亞貿易。
戴明獎(Deming Application Prize)則是日本科技聯盟(JUSE)為紀念將SQC方法帶到日本的美國戴明博士(Dr.W. L. Deming)而設立。飛利浦企業總裁羅益強以五年時間，率領台灣飛利滿，接受最高品質的鍛鍊，使台灣飛利浦成為區域整合時代具有自我成長能力的有機組織。
這項名為「跨世紀企業論壇」的研討會，還包括由陳文雄與工研院長林垂宙、惠普科技總裁黃河明、華邦科技總經理楊丁元、聲寶企業董事長陳盛沺等企業家對談的「台灣企業的躍昇」，及以「明日經營的關鍵」為主題的百家企業躍昇關鍵研討會。
「跨世紀企業論壇」歡迎國內企業負責人、經理人參與，請電○二七一八二○○○社會大學。
【1992-11-02/聯合報/11版/經濟證券】

1992

3月
WED 答應收 博士論文學生
On Quality, Dr. Deming, and Candles - McNary

5月

本耶穌會之傳統辦 MBA

"The School of Business at Fordham University started fresh with a great idea, namely, to bring about the transformation that is vital for American business, government and education." W. Edwards Deming, May 1992

SOME PROGRAM FEATURES CYCLES OF LEARNING SUBJECT CONTENT PRACTICA DIRECTOR, ADVISORS, FACULTY FORDHAM UNIVERSITY GBA FOR MORE INFORMATION

The Deming Scholars MBA Program aims to build a foundation for leadership in the new economic age. It provides a small group of highly motivated students with a unique opportunity to develop expertise in Dr. Deming's teachings and to build leadership skills within the framework of an outstanding program accredited by the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).

以台灣飛利浦獲日戴明獎期許

TOC成功之道4台灣飛利浦 如何捧回日本戴明獎
【陳啟明】
台灣飛利浦是經過怎樣的申請、審查程序，而拿到日本戴明獎？
台灣飛利浦管理處處長童維堅指出，第一步是向主辦單位「日本戴明獎專責委員會」，提出申請，第一階段是要通過書面審查，上述通過後則進行現場審查，由日方派遣多位專家到總公司、到工廠現場審查，並與各高階主管、中階幹部、甚至基層人員進行面對面的晤談，以深入了解公司上下對品質的觀念、決心和實際行動。
他說，無論得獎與否，現場審查後之三個月內，評審委員會提出一份報告書給受審單位。
童維堅並對「戴明獎」的由來，作簡扼介紹。在二次世界大戰後，日本實施經濟復甦計畫，以及為了改變戰前世人對「日本貨」的惡劣品質印象，痛下苦功地實施「統計品管」，日後證實這果然是最快捷的提升品質的做法。他說，日本科技連(JUSE)邀請了美國籍的統計專家戴明博士(Dr.W. Edwards Deming)於一九五○年七月赴日授課講學。其課程內容，如「品管八日課程」極受歡迎，並奠下企業界實施現代品管之基石。
日科技連為了感念戴明的友誼及成就，於一九五一年設立「戴明獎」，並成立專責委員會來作管理。
童維堅指出，四十年來，日本企業已發展到「全面品管」(TotaI Quality Control，TQC)或「全公司品質管制」(Company Wide Quality Control，CWQC)的境界，而戴明獎日益為國際所推崇。
至於戴明獎的種類，童維堅指出，可分本賞(個人獎)、實施賞(企業獎)、中小企業實施賞和事業部賞(某大企業之某事業部)等四類。台灣飛利浦得到的是實施賞。
他說，台灣飛利浦在第一階段時，交出「品質現況報告書」，其內容章節，大致如下：
(1)公司概況(2)組織與管理(3)CWQI之活動歷史(4)方針展開(5)人力資源管理(6)品質保證(7)新製品開發(8)成本管理(9)交期管理(10)安全與環境。(11)標準化(12)綜合效果(13)將來計畫(14)經營者之觀感。
他強調，要根據上述架構，以具體資料來撰寫報告書。
童維堅說，日本方面對現場審查也列有十個重點：
灣方針
(1)經營、品質與品質管理的各項方針。
(2)方針決定的方法。
(3)方針內容的妥當性及一貫性。(4)統計方法的活用。
(5)方針的傳達及滲透。
(6)方針及其達成狀況的檢點。(7)方針與長、短期計畫的關連。
(二)組織及其營運
(1)責任與權限的明確性。
(2)權限委授的適切性。
(3)部門間的合作。
(4)委員會活動。
(5)幕僚的活用。
(6)品管圈活動的活用。
(7)品質管理的診斷。
(三)教育及推廣
(1)教育計畫及實績。
(2)品質意識、管理意識及對品質管理的理解度。
(3)統計的思考及其手法之教育普及狀況。
(4)效果的把握。
(5)對關連企業(特別是關係企業、承製廠商、業務受託廠商、經銷商等)的教育。
(6)品管圈活動。
(7)改善提案的制度及實況。
(四)資訊的蒐集傳達及活用
(1)外界商情的蒐集。(2)部門間的資訊傳達。
(3)資訊傳達的速度(電腦的運用)。
(4)資訊的整理(用統計方法者)解析及活用。
(五)解析
(1)重要問題及主題的選定。
(2)解析方法的妥當性。
(3)統計方法的活用。
(4)與固有技術的連接。
(5)品質解析及製程解析。
(6)解析結果的活用。
(7)改善提案的積極性。
其餘五個重點是標準化、管理、品質保證、效果及將來計畫，亦是訂有細目，以便一一審查。
童維堅說，評審委員會事後提出的報告書，是涵蓋了該受審查單位的優點及建議要加強之處。其報告書的架構是分成三大部份：一般總論及建議，依項(審查重點)分類，以及依部門分類。前二項是針對經營者、總公司及分公司，第三項則是針對總公司和分公司。他最後說，日本戴明獎的審查作業是鉅細靡遺，邏輯思考週密，台灣飛利浦在這次的審查過程中充分體會了日本人的認真精神。
【1992-03-05/經濟日報/27版/副刊/企業生活】


蕭萬長勉企業提升品質
【記者江鎮林、於念鋆─台北】
經濟部長蕭萬長昨(廿九)日以台灣飛利浦公司榮獲日本戴明獎的成就，勉勵我國企業提升品質，改善對日貿易逆差。
蕭萬長在財團法人中衛發展中心與本報主辦的「全面品質經營成果發表會」中，對與會近二百位知名企業主管致詞時，作了上述表示。
這項發表會由本報副社長林笑峰與中衛中心董事長高辛陽共同主持，經濟部工業局局長王覺民也在會中致詞，嘉許飛利浦公司的成就。
蕭萬長說，最近政府與日本方面談判如何改善中日貿易逆差問題時，即引用這個例子說明台灣產品品質已達日本水準，獲得日本方面的認同。
他又說，戴明獎是因為日本企業引進美國戴明博士的統計品管方法，大幅提升了品質與競爭力，而設立，以紀念戴明博士，至今通過戴明獎考驗的日本企業如松下電器、豐田、三菱重工等，都活躍於世界經濟舞台，台灣飛利浦公司能成為我國第一家，也是世界上第二家獲得戴明獎的非日本公司，非常難得。
蕭萬長並以六年國建的長程目標，即為提升全面品質，來勉勵企業追求最高的品質，使得台灣產品在國際間完全脫離廉價的印象，他相信提升我國產品品質，迎頭趕上先進國家，在消費者心中樹立台灣產品品質第一的形象，必能再創我國另一次經濟發展奇蹟。
【1992-03-01/經濟日報/04版/綜合新聞】

Take This Job and Love It

By ANDREA GABOR;

Published: January 26, 1992

With profits declining and competition on the rise, the International Business Machines Corporation wants to make sure all of its employees are pulling their weight. So the computer giant is making it easier for its people to get fired. Under one of the most intricately structured appraisal systems in the nation, 10 percent of Big Blue's vaunted work force will get flunking grades in their annual reviews this year, marking for many the first step toward dismissal. Another 10 percent, deemed by their bosses to be superstars, could earn bonuses of $50,000 or more.

By contrast, Eastman Kodak's Eastman Chemical Company has stopped grading employees. To eliminate a tier of managers and push responsibility down the line, Eastman recently did away with the top jobs in marketing, production and product development. Now, decisions in manufacturing, for instance, and solutions to, say, waste treatment problems, are hammered out in monthly meetings by the heads of the company's three major plants. Because the new team structure makes it difficult to evaluate individual performance, Eastman Chemical is likely to adopt a system of peer review.

Pressured by the recession to thin their ranks while improving products and services to remain competitive, companies across the country are grappling anew with how to get the most from their troops. And a growing minority are scrapping the all-American merit system -- championed by companies like I.B.M. -- -- in favor of a more egalitarian approach based on teamwork, where peer pressure, rather than the carrot-and-stick approach, drives motivation.

Companies as diverse as the General Motors Corporation and Eastman Kodak are experimenting with a pass/fail approach to performance evaluation as a way to replace the traditional star system. They are gradually being won over to the notion that rewarding a handful of "winners" and holding them up as the keys to corporate innovation and success brands the majority of employees as losers, hurting morale and cooperation. The Trouble With Rating

"The merit rating nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, and nourishes rivalry and politics," said W. Edwards Deming, a management expert whose principles for attaining higher quality are inspiring performance appraisal reforms.

Some experts, in fact, believe the merit system, and the way it measures and rewards individual initiative, is in fundamental conflict with the search for quality and solutions to competitive problems.

In his upcoming book "The Economics of Trust," John O. Whitney, a former chief operating officer of Pathmark supermarkets and now a management professor at Columbia University, writes: "If we continue with our traditional measurements and rewards, our relative productivity will continue its decline, our quality will suffer, and our ability to compete will wither away."

Traditionalists, for whom the star system is as logical as Darwin's theory of natural selection, argue that abandoning it would breed complacency rather than discovery. "You start with your culture, where your history and practices have positioned you," said Walton E. Burdick, senior vice president of personnel at I.B.M., who contends that performance appraisal systems must reflect the ingrained culture of individualism long fostered by American companies.

Moreover, he said, in defense of I.B.M.'s recent actions, "The destiny of this corporation is dependent on the quality of the employees. We're still a compassionate caring company, but in a global competitive environment, making the bottom 10 percent uncomfortable is good business."

But proponents of no-fault performance appraisals counter that the country has outgrown the corporate star system. It used to be easy to give merit raises to most employees, but as competitive pressures have tightened salary budgets, companies have been forced to make hair-splitting distinctions between individual performances.

Earl Conway, director of corporate quality at Procter & Gamble, said that as companies "get better and better at selecting and training individuals, it's going to get harder and harder to make distinctions between the overall quality of individual performance." That's especially true as they encourage employees from different departments and with widely varying expertise to work in teams.

In response, a cluster of companies are overhauling the way they manage, evaluate and compensate workers to foster cooperation. Rather than passing judgment on individual performance, some companies are trying a pass/fail approach on the premise that individuals can be only as effective as the systems within which they work. In this setting, the boss is a trouble-shooter who helps employees improve the system and create an environment conducive to change.

They hope that the teamwork that results will have as big an impact on overall corporate productivity as it did on manufacturing in the 80's, when it helped improve such things as car assembly at the Ford Motor Company. And in their view, it is a better way to capitalize on the strengths of a uniquely diverse work force. Although diversity may be difficult to manage, it is a resource that can give United States companies an edge over most foreign competitors because it provides the same creative potential that has made cross-functional problem-solving among the most important innovations of the decade, Mr. Conway said. Lesson Proved in Japan

The nascent movement away from the traditional meritocracy draws much of its impetus from the growing popularity of the quality managment principles of Dr. Deming, a Ph.D in mathematical physics who helped inspire the quality revolution in Japan after World War II. At the root of the 91-year-old management guru's teachings is the observation that all processes -- whether they involve people or machines -- are subject to some amount of variation that erodes quality. Management's job is to control the level of variation and to enlist the help of employees to constantly improve the overall system.

"By managing the process, you free up people to do what they want to do anyway," said Bob Dorn, chief engineer at G.M.'s Cadillac division, which has embraced the Deming concept. "It's like being in a phone booth. You can turn around, but you can't move very far. Management's job is to continue to move the walls back."

In recent years, Dr. Deming has gradually convinced corporate America of the value of a more collaborative, process-oriented vision of management. His concepts, for instance, were instrumental in the turnaround of a range of American manufacturing companies including Cadillac.

At G.M., the experiment began in 1989 after the automaker abandoned a company-wide ranking scheme, much like the one initiated recently at I.B.M., that graded employees on a curve, arbitrarily giving 10 percent of the staff a poor rating. The system implicitly penalized individuals for the company's declining market share and implied that the fear of a low ranking could coerce employees into doing better. But G.M. employees say the scheme caused morale to plunge, setting off a "near revolt" among managers. The strategy was gone within a few months.

In its place, a number of G.M. units, including Cadillac, began to look toward an embryonic experiment in the Powertrain division of the company's "big car" group, Buick-Oldsmobile-Cadillac. Powertrain executives had replaced rankings with a radically different appraisal system that reinforced a one-for-all group culture. It tied compensation not to annual appraisals, but to a "maturity curve" that considered an individual's seniority, level of expertise and the overall market for his or her services. Evaluations were based on input from peers and subordinates as well as from managers.

Powertrain allowed for the possibility that an employee might truly be outstanding. But to prevent such designations from becoming demoralizing, such rankings require "consensus by acclamation; no debate." Last year, only 5 of 1,600 employees were deemed exceptional.

The new appraisal and compensation plan has survived three Powertrain reorganizations, and is likely to be applied to all 65,000 employees in the recently consolidated and expanded division, which includes all G.M. engine, transmission and casting operations. In a recent company survey, close to 90 percent of the original Powertrain group supported what had been the most controversial aspect of the plan -- the evaluation by peers and subordinates. It used to seem as though managers "were flipping coins to determine what your next career position would be," said Chris Meagher, who oversees 20 Powertrain engineers. "With the new process, people are more confident that it's an even exchange."

The system is also considered a contributing factor to the turnaround of Cadillac, which adopted it in 1989. Cadillac, expecting to sell a total of only 60,000 of its 1992 Eldorados and Sevilles, already has orders and sales of 50,000.

At Procter & Gamble, some executives have begun to question the traditional merit system as a result of a recent study indicating that employees were starved for career counseling and that the company was losing many of its brightest as a result.

The consumer products company has one of the most selective hiring and training programs in the country and a turnover rate so low that most companies would envy it. Yet promotions and career development often seemed arbitrary. "Talented individuals miss out on career opportunities because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time," said one company executive. "Promotions don't necessarily go to those with the best mix of skills."

To improve on a collaborative management process that took root more than 25 years ago, chairman Edwin L. Artzt ordered his lieutenants to spend more time "mentoring." First, subordinates will discuss with their managers once a year their progress in meeting long-term career objectives. Under another grass-roots proposal, every P.& G. employee would chart his or her career path for 10 to 20 years, amending it along the way. Managers would offer advice on how to achieve objectives and take useful career detours.

Proponents believe the process will keep talented individuals from falling between the cracks and help P.& G. pair individuals in marketing and product development, for example, who have complimentary interests and skills to build more creative work teams. "We want to make it easier for employees to focus on their customers, rather than on their supervisors," said one executive. The Zytec Way

Indeed, as companies turn to teamwork to foster innovation and speed decision-making, they are driven to reassess the way they supervise and reward performance. Take the Zytec Corporation, a maker of customized power supplies in Eden Prairie, Minn. After being spun off in 1984 by the Control Data Corporation and without a single outside customer to its name, Zytec overhauled its performance appraisal and compensation system with an eye toward building the sort of collaborative environment it deemed was needed to quickly churn out products for customers.

For the last few years, the vast majority of Zytec employees have earned the same percentage pay increases. The company has eliminated bonuses and executive perquisites, and it maintains a narrow 14-fold differential between the salary of the chief executive and the lowest paid manufacturing worker.

Like Powertrain, Zytec, in its only concession to the old star system, agreed to let managers petition for extra money for a few exceptional employees. "The system isn't perfect," said Ronald D. Schmidt, chief executive, referring to the difficulting of keeping the exceptional category below 5 percent of the work force. "But it certainly hasn't hurt us any."

Last year, the privately held company won the Malcolm Baldrige Award for Quality and made nearly $2 million on more than $74 million in sales. Since 1988, it has slashed the time it takes to develop a new product by 50 percent, cut product development cost by nearly as much, and increased sales per employee to $100,000, 20 percent above the industry average.

The recession and the need to pare personnel, however, confronts these pioneers with new challenges. G.M., for instance, looking to eliminate more than 20,000 jobs, has given the Powertrain division six months to cut 800 jobs. The division is canvassing employees for ideas and is considering everything from leaves-of-absence to job-sharing to transferring work once done by outside contractors to in-house personnel -- but not trying to identify poor performers.

Says Mary Jenkins, director of human resource planning at Powertrain: "When we're done, we don't want people wondering how a colleague lost their job. If it isn't done carefully, people who remain could be very negatively affected." I.B.M. ANNUAL EVALUATION: 7 PAGES PER EMPLOYEE

To identify the best and worst employees, every manager at I.B.M., beginning this year, will use a seven-page annual evaluation to rate employees on a scale of 1 to 4, with 10 percent receiving the top and bottom grades, and the rest getting 2's and 3's. The managers will also rank employees by their relative contributions to the business. People in the uppermost tier on both scales are eligible for bonuses, while workers with the lowest grades will be given three months to improve their performance, or lose their jobs.

I.B.M. says it is not abandoning its no-layoff policy. The new system is not related to its efforts to eliminate 20,000 jobs this year, it says. Rather, in trying to raise performance standards, it is retaining only the best people. "In the competitive world we're in, we can't drag along folks who aren't" making the grade, said Walton E. Burdick, senior vice president of personnel at I.B.M. "This doesn't mean people at the bottom are necessarily going to be fired," he added.

But some management experts believe the strategy could backfire. Because I.B.M. is known for hiring only high achievers, alloting low ratings to a set percentage of the work force is "neither realistic nor fair," said John Parkington, national director of organizational research and development at the Wyatt Company, a human resources consulting firm.

The new quota system, said John O. Raudsep of the Towers Perrin management consulting firm, could "destroy the credibility and the effectiveness of their appraisal program."

What do I.B.M. employees think? "They're just trying to get rid of a lot of people," said one, who has worked at I.B.M. for more than a decade and asked not to be named. "There are feelings that Akers has been screwing up, and now he's turning around and trying to blame others." The reference was to John F. Akers, I.B.M.'s chief executive.

The employee's story shows what a slippery slope I.B.M. may be on. She said she received the second-highest rating -- a 2, on what had been a 1-to-5 scale -- for most of her career there. But a few years ago, she got a new boss and her grade slipped to a 3. She believes the downgrading has more to do with her request for a job transfer than any change in her performance. Now, she says, she is in danger of being pushed to a 4.

Even colleagues with consistently high grades have reason to fear, she said. An employee with a 1 rating, for example, who has had a project cancelled could get a low ranking on the portion of the appraisal that measures relative contribution to the business. Under I.B.M.'s complicated new appraisal formula, the overall rating would probably drop. . TO CUT RAISES, GIVE BAD GRADES

Many experts agree that tying raises to performance reviews can prove demotivating, particularly in a recession.

As budgets tighten, companies naturally want to cut down on raises. In many cases, that is most easily done by simply giving fewer favorable annual appraisals, said Marsha Cameron, a salary management expert at the Wyatt Company, a human resources consulting firm. But, of course, those being appraised are left to wonder why they are suddenly less valuable than they were in better times.

That may explain why only 40 percent of the companies with so-called pay-for-performance systems say they are satisfied with the results, according to a recent study by Towers Perrin.

Most companies, however, aren't likely to scrap their performance appraisal plans soon. For one thing, companies switching to pass/fail evaluations say they have had to spend years re-educating their work force about the philosophy and the mechanics of the alternative system.

Also, many defend the grading game on the ground that employees want to be judged, and rewarded, for individual performance. Still, studies at many companies show that the vast majority of employees feel they are above-average performers. And most managers acknowledge that when people ask for a grade, they are expecting a good one.

Andrea Gabor is a New York writer and author of "The Man Who Discovered Quality."

聯經企業名著

三本新作登場 財訊探索九二年政經新趨勢
【台北訊】
由聯經出版公司精心規畫的「企業名著」系列，又有三本新作登場。
其中，「品管大師戴明博士」一書，由汪益翻譯，定價二五○元；書中主角人物為在日本家喻戶曉，一位教日本人如何提昇品質的美國人戴明(W.Edwards Deming）本書介紹他的十四點管理法則，探討戴明的嚴格管理課程何以讓日本產業躍居世界牛耳之地位。

「豐田式品管」由陳耀茂譯，定價二○○元；本書作者根本正夫是豐田汽車推行全面品質管理(TQC)的設計及領導人，書中詳述部門效率化、方針管理、品管圈、維持管理、強化設計部門等TQC實務作法。
由張瓊玉譯的「揭開哈佛商學院的奧祕」一書，定價二五○元。本書以深入淺出方式，探索全美最富聲望的哈佛商學院在企業經營管理方面之特殊理念，並據此建議如何處理緊張、面對壓力，以擬定最佳決策，使企業永遠保有最充足的競爭能力。
有意購買聯經公司企管新書者，可利用郵政劃撥「0100559－3號，聯經出版公司」函購。
【台北訊】一九九一年是國際政局瞬息萬變的一年，展望一九九二年在國際及台灣政經大變局中，應如何掌握新趨勢？元月號財訊月刊裡，邱永漢社論說：「一九九二年將是一個充滿機會的年頭。」
九二年的機會在哪裡？財訊特別製作「一九九二政經趨勢」及「一九九二理財戰略」二大專輯，探索台灣在變局中的趨勢與機會。
九二政經趨勢中，甫於二屆國代選舉獲勝的國民黨會採取什麼政治手段與財經措施「乘勝追擊」；主流派形勢大好，非主流派何去何從？「政情篇」裡「郝柏村內閣還能維持多久？」、「台北政壇今年誰會紅」、「李登輝贏得信任投票」、「九二年全台政情總探索」中，皆有深入剖析。
財經方面，中研院院士費景漢透視全台政經前景、公交法對未來產業新衝擊、國建計畫大到「養豬、換水錶、蓋酒廠」，全國二十大家族股票市值排行榜、民國八十年代企業集團誰能脫穎而出等文，均有詳細分析。
財訊最權威的「特權內幕報導」中，元月號仍繼續追蹤調查，精彩內容包括：中鋼結構上市爆發舞弊案、中國商銀駐外人員子女升大學大特權、華視三大「民股」總曝光、黨政高層人員都在中視兼差、華航現金增資案獨厚特定入、黃信介和翁大銘合夥經商內幕。
「九二年理財戰略」專輯中，財訊提出九二年投資理財策略分析，包括：程明乾談「今年潛力股總索引」、八十年新上市公司總評鑑、羅際棠總評十五家新銀行戰況、黃天麟擬九二年投資策略與投資組合、企業理財戰國策、房地產市場持續盤整，高球證行情報導、專文「元宵節前是股市多頭最佳進攻時機」、「九二年投資錦囊」等。
【1992-01-24/經濟日報/24版/專業分類】